IS THE CYTOSKELETON A "SPIRITUAL BODY" RESURRECTED AT DEATH?
George Hammond
The past 20 years of microtubule research has established
that the cytoskeleton in the neuronal brain cells is a vast
holographic optical computer.
In fact, since every cell in the body contains a
cytoskeleton of optically active microtubules, we may
consider the cytoskeleton in it's entirety to be a
"spiritual body" based on the fact that the neuronal
cytoskeleton is the locus of memory and cognition itself.
Elsewhere on this list I have pointed out that the
cytoskeleton using optical frequencies (Froehlich's
frequency) operates a billion times faster than neuronal
firing frequency. This means that the cytoskeleton could
store a "death dream" (an afterlife) a week long that could
be "downloaded" from the cytoskeleton memory in less than a
millisecond. Hence, the deathbed observers would see the
dearly departed die in a millisecond, however the deceased
would observe that he lived on for another week in paradise!
Life After Death is actually life before death that only
appears to occur after death!
Moreover, since the entire body cytoskeleton is involved
in the experience of this "virtual reality" the observer
would retain his entire body in Heaven!
Since all of this is based on off the shelf accepted
experimental science, as a physicist, it appears to me that
St. Paul's description of life after death in I Corinthians
Ch 15: 35-55 as taking place "in the twinkling of an eye" at
the "last trump" and consisting of a "spiritual body" now
appears to have a very concrete and viable scientific basis!
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
alien8er
Further, we know that the eye's retina is a direct connection to the
brain and thus the entire nervous system. _Optical Waveguides_ by
María L. Calvo and Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan explains the rods and
cones as comprising arrays of cylindrical waveguide segments embedded
in a dielectric cladding with a different refractive index such that
they together form optical antennae for capturing incoming light.
Some may claim that even granting the existence of optical energy
propagating along microtubules within a given neuron, information
cannot get from one neuron to another across synapses. This is not
true; there are two types of neurological synapse; first, the kind
most people think of, the chemical synapse mediated by "puffs" of
neurotransmitter chemicals across the 20-40 nanometers separating
neurons with a delay time of ~ 2 millisecond which could not allow
light to pass from one neuron's microtubule network to anothers'-
second, the electrical synapse, where two neurons' membranes, a mere
3.5 nanometers apart, are bridged by hollow-rivet-shaped channels
which when "switched" open (with a response time of only ~ .2
milliseconds, ten times faster than ordinary chemical synapses*) are
large enough to pass ions and medium-sized molecules and are located
at gaps in the actin "shells" where the microtubules normally
terminate, allowing light to pass as well. This latter type of synapse
does not have "gain" unlike chemical synapses, but microtubule
propagation is, according to Froehlich, probably LASER-like so no gain
is needed at the synapses.
While the physical structure of microtubules is anisotropic (they
have differently shaped ends) their propagation characteristics are
not; EM fields will propagate in both directions along them equally
well.
Hence ancient "superstitious" claims of beams of light being
emanated from human eyes become much less unbelievable.
Biblical and other references to the eyes as lamps or windows "to
the soul" also become clearer. So does the curiously specific
description "twinkling of an eye".
Have you heard of the Asian Martial Arts concept of the "penetrating
eye"? It's vaguely related to the concept of the Medieval European
"superstition" of the Evil Eye; the penetrating eye allegedly allows
one to capture another's attention with a focused glance and "entrain"
their thought processes in a desired direction.
There are also certain "primitive" traditions that suggest not
staring into the eyes of a dying person unless you don't mind the
thought of harboring some part of them for the rest of _your_ life.
* This is not fast enough for the sort of data processing you're
talking about but is easily fast enough for "memory bank switching"
types of operations during life- In death though, all these channels
throughout the nervous system open wide...
Mark L. Fergerson
PS sci.biology snipped because stoopit Google Groups doesn't support
it.
DougC
> � �Moreover, since the entire body cytoskeleton is involved
> in the experience of this "virtual reality" the observer
> would retain his entire body in Heaven!
How would the "observer" experience this afterlife? When the mortal
body shuts down, there are no longer eyes, ears, nose, etc. for
incoming information. The cytoskeleton would be permanently in silent
darkness.
John Stafford
> IS THE CYTOSKELETON A "SPIRITUAL BODY" RESURRECTED AT DEATH?
>
> The past 20 years of microtubule research has established
> that the cytoskeleton in the neuronal brain cells is a vast
> holographic optical computer.
Research has not proven that to be true. Greater minds than ours have
posited the potential (R. Penrose and Hameroff for example), and
refutations have been made but only potential because we still do not
know the matter inside of microtubles.
> In fact, since every cell in the body contains a
> cytoskeleton of optically active microtubules, we may
> consider the cytoskeleton in it's entirety to be a
> "spiritual body" based on the fact that the neuronal
> cytoskeleton is the locus of memory and cognition itself.
Interesting idea.
> Elsewhere on this list I have pointed out that the
> cytoskeleton using optical frequencies (Froehlich's
> frequency) operates a billion times faster than neuronal
> firing frequency.
George, that is certainly the most interesting idea you have expressed
in your career online.
> This means that the cytoskeleton could
> store a "death dream" (an afterlife) a week long that could
> be "downloaded" from the cytoskeleton memory in less than a
> millisecond.
OOPS! Me thinks the wishful thinking there is too much.
George Hammond
>Mar�a L. Calvo and Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan explains the rods and
>cones as comprising arrays of cylindrical waveguide segments embedded
>in a dielectric cladding with a different refractive index such that
>they together form optical antennae for capturing incoming light.
>
>
[Hammond]
More importantly Russ and Karen De Valois in a classic
set of experiments in the '90's at Berkeley proved
conclusively that visual striata cells store visual memory
as a FOURIER TRANSFORM of the image, NOT as a "bitmap" of
the image. This means the image is stored as a HOLOGRAM.
>
>
> Some may claim that even granting the existence of optical energy
>propagating along microtubules within a given neuron, information
>cannot get from one neuron to another across synapses.
>
>
[Hammond]
Na.. your information is 20 years out of date. they now know
there is quantumj tunneling not only within cells but
between cells.
Long story short... an in depth review of the literature now
shows an overwhelming probablility that the entire
cytoskeleton of the brain, and even the entire body is
optically connected.
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
>
[Hammond]
The REAL PROBLEM with the theory of life after death is
not whether it is POSSIBLE since that is now easily
demonstrated using conventional cytoskeleton phenomenology.
No, the real problem remains the question of whether the
conjecture of life aftrer death is RACE IFPSO CREDIBLE in
the first place.... and that is more of a psychological
question than a physics question. Any thoughts on the
CREDIBILITY i.e. the PRIMA FACIE PLAUSIBILITY of the notion
of life after death?
George Hammond
<prig...@aol.com> wrote:
> George Hammond wrote:
>
>> ? ?Moreover, since the entire body cytoskeleton is involved
>> in the experience of this "virtual reality" the observer
>> would retain his entire body in Heaven!
>
>How would the "observer" experience this afterlife?
>
>
[Hammond]
The same way you observe this life, only it is nhot the
neuronal system that would be observing it, it would be the
cytoskeleton system that would be observing it. Hence it is
still YOU that is the observer.
>
>
> When the mortal
>body shuts down, there are no longer eyes, ears, nose, etc. for
>incoming information. The cytoskeleton would be permanently in silent
>darkness.
>
>
[Hammond]
Na.... the eyes, ears, nose etc are all composed of cells
which all contain cellular cytoskeletons. The "cytoskeleton
body" is an exact replica of the "cellular body"...a soert
of "body within a body", the only difference is that the
cellular body sees this world, and the cytoskeleton body can
see Heaven.
George Hammond
<now...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> IS THE CYTOSKELETON A "SPIRITUAL BODY" RESURRECTED AT DEATH?
>>
>> The past 20 years of microtubule research has established
>> that the cytoskeleton in the neuronal brain cells is a vast
>> holographic optical computer.
>
>
>Research has not proven that to be true.
>
>
[Hammond]
I disagree... I have spent years reviewing the literature
on the subject and have even talked to Stuart Hameroff. In
my opinion the evidence for the above statement is now quite
overwhelming.
>
> Greater minds than ours have
>posited the potential (R. Penrose and Hameroff for example),
>
>
[Hammond]
Speak for yourself.
>
> and
>refutations have been made but only potential because we still do not
>know the matter inside of microtubles.
>
>
[Hammond]
The evidence is quite overwhelming that the microtubules
are filled with "ordered water molecules" which participate
in "superradiancde" (Dicke, Feynman, Jibu, Marshal, etc) and
propagate by "induced transparency" a phenomenon well known
to laser physics.
>
>
>> In fact, since every cell in the body contains a
>> cytoskeleton of optically active microtubules, we may
>> consider the cytoskeleton in it's entirety to be a
>> "spiritual body" based on the fact that the neuronal
>> cytoskeleton is the locus of memory and cognition itself.
>
>
>Interesting idea.
>
>
[Hammond]
Do you really think so?
>
>
>> Elsewhere on this list I have pointed out that the
>> cytoskeleton using optical frequencies (Froehlich's
>> frequency) operates a billion times faster than neuronal
>> firing frequency.
>
>
>George, that is certainly the most interesting idea you have expressed
>in your career online.
>
>
[Hammond]
Well, coming from a world recognized authority such as
yourself that really means something.
>
>
>> This means that the cytoskeleton could
>> store a "death dream" (an afterlife) a week long that could
>> be "downloaded" from the cytoskeleton memory in less than a
>> millisecond.
>
>OOPS! Me thinks the wishful thinking there is too much.
>
>
[Hammond]
Excuse me but you just stepped off the deep end of the pool,
you're supposed to stay in the shallow end thank you.
Trish Raggens
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Mr. Fergerson,
What do you think of Dr. Pribram theory of holographic brain
functions. Is there any present argument or experiments that
totally refute it that's why they are not taken up by
present neurologists?
see:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Holonomic_brain_theory
Important excepts:
"Holonomy is Patch Holography
Another common misconception is that the Fourier transformation is
globally spread across the entire brain cortex. This has led to
misleading statements such as “The brain is a hologram.” Only one
particular brain process is holonomic, the one taking place in the
transactions occurring in its fine fibered web. From the outset in the
early 1960s when Pribram proposed the theory, he noted that the spread
function (as it is appropriately called) is limited to a receptive
field of an individual neuron in a cortical sensory system – and he
actually thought that this was a serious problem for the theory until
it was shown by radio-astronomers that such limited regions could be
patched together to encompass large regions of observations.
Despite these precise early descriptions, psychophysicists and others
in the scientific community spent much time and effort to show that a
global Fourier transformation would not work to explain sensory
function. Few paid heed to patch holography -- which Pribram had
dubbed holonomy and which engineers and mathematicians call a
“windowed Fourier Transformation”.
[edit]Interference Patterns
The third common misconception regarding holography and holonomy is
that these processes deal with waves. Waves occur in space and in
time. The Fourier transformation deals with the intersections among
waves, their interference patterns created by differences among their
phases. The amplitudes of these intersections are Fourier
coefficients, discrete numbers that are used for computation. These
numbers are useful in statistical calculations. The statistical and
the spectral computations are readily convertible into one another:
successive terms in the Fourier series correspond to “orders” in
statistics and thus can serve as vectors in graphs. [For instance it
takes 4th order statistics to adequately analyze the waveforms of an
EEG by Independent Component Analysis (ICA)]. (See
Pribram,Xie,Zheng,Santa Maria,Hovis Shan and King).
Convertibility raises the question of the value of having multiple
mathematical representations of data. In author’s experience, which
reflects earlier discussions in quantum physics, the spectral
representation displays a more nuanced (“Anschaulichkeit” in German)
representation while the statistical/vector representation is more
computationally friendly.
[edit]Deep and Surface Structures of Memory
A final common misconception that needs to be dealt with, is that all
memory storage is holonomic (holographic). This misconception stems
from juxtaposing memory storage to memory retrieval. However, in order
for retrieval to occur, the memory must be stored in such a way that
it can become retrieved. In other words, retrieval is dependent on
storing a code. The retrieval process, the encoding, is stored in the
brain's circuitry. We can, therefore, distinguish a deep holonomic
store (which can be content addressable) from a surface pattern (such
as naming) of stored circuitry. Thus the deep dis-membered holonomic
store can be re-membered.
[edit]Conclusion
Holographic and holonomic processes are “holistic” as their names
imply. This attribute has endeared the concept to humanists and some
philosophers and scientists. However, many of these proponents of a
holistic view conflate two very different forms of holism. In biology
and psychology a well known form which I like to call “wholism” is
captured in the saying that “the whole is more than and different from
the sum of its parts.” Reductionist and materialist scientists and
philosophers like this form of wholism because they can discern
emergent properties as they investigate higher orders and can try to
reduce the higher order to the lower ones either as to their
properties or the theoretical terms that describe their relations.
By contrast, holographic and holonomic processes are truly “holistic”
in that they spread patterns everywhere and everywhen to entangle the
parts with one another. In this domain, space and time no longer exist
and therefore neither does “causality” in Aristotle’s sense of
“efficient causation”. This relation between cause and effect has
served well as the coin of much of current science and the philosophy
of science. However, Aristotle’s more comprehensive formal or
formative causation is more appropriate to descriptions of more
complex orders such as language and those composed by holographic and
holonomic brain processes. Holism in this form is related to “holy”
and “healthy”. My hope has been that as scientists begin to understand
and accept the validity of holonomic processes as truly scientific,
this understanding will help resolve the current estrangement between
the sciences and the humanities, and between sophisticated pursuits of
science and sophisticated pursuits of religion. "
George Hammond
>>[Mark Fergerson]
>>...., the electrical synapse, where two neurons' membranes, a mere
>> 3.5 nanometers apart, are bridged by hollow-rivet-shaped channels
>> which when "switched" open (with a response time of only ~ .2
>> milliseconds, ten times faster than ordinary chemical synapses*)
>> .... are located at gaps ... " where the microtubules normally
>> terminate, allowing light to pass as well.... according to Froehlich
>> probably LASER-like ..............
>>... EM fields will propagate in both directions ... equally well.
>>
>> � Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>
>[Trish Raggens]
>Hi Mr. Fergerson,
>
>What do you think of Dr. Pribram's theory of holographic brain
>functions. Is there any present argument or experiments that
>totally refute it that's why they are not taken up by
>present neurologists?
>see:
>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Holonomic_brain_theory
>
>
[Hammond]
Karl Pribram, now 90, is an extraordinary genius
renowned neurosurgeon and psychologist emeritus.
I first ran into to him 15 years ago when he wrote a
letter to me about my discovery of the biological origin of
the Structural Model of Personality (Hammond 1994, Pergamon
Press)).
I next ran into him in 2003 when I published my discovery
of the world's first scientific proof of God in the Noetic
Journal and discovered that he was on the editorial board
and had published a number of papers there.
Pribram's Holographic brain hypothesis was a stroke of
genius. Pribram was Karl Lashly's collaborator for 15 years
in the futile search for the memory ENGRAM in the brain.
They finally concluded there isn't one and that memory is
distributed all over the brain. Pribram was the first one
to realize WHY this is so... that memory is stored as a
HOLOGRAM and as we know you can cut a hologram to ribbons
and every small piece still contains the entire picture...
this is why even extensive damage to the brain does NOT have
the least effect on memory. Pribrams's hologram theory was
finally experimentally confirmed by Karen De Valois in the
90's at Berkeley in one of the most stunningly elegant
scientific experiments ever conducted in neuorpsychology.
Prior to K.K. De Valois it was believed that brain cells
responded to "corners and edges" in the visual field,
however De Valois suspected the brain cells responded to the
FOURIER TRANSFORM of the image and NOT the bitmap of the
image.
She used a CLASSIC physics trick to prove this: The
edges in a plaid image and a checkerboard image are the
same, however the FOURIER TRANSFORM of a plaid and checker
image are not the same, they are ROTATED 45 DEGREES from one
another. This can be intuitively understood by realizing
that the color rows on a checkerboard run in the DIAGONAL
direction even though the edges do not... hence the Fourier
Transform is rotated 45 degrees from that of a striped or
plaid image.
O.k., so what Russ and Karen did was measure the firing
electrode output from the visual cortex cells to see if the
checkerboard had to be rotated 45 degrees to pick up the
Fourier components of the image... sure enough they DID.
Later they confirmed the result six ways from Sunday by
even measuring the 2nd FARMONIC of the Fourier Transform in
cell firing and by half a dozen other experimental tests.
Today there is NO QUESTION that the visual image from the
eye is stored in the visual cortex as a HOLOGRAM... and now
it has been discovered that the image is actually set in
"hardwired" storage by MAP2 polymerization in the
MICROTUBULES of the CYTOSKELETON of the neurons. The ENGRAM
has finally been found in the cytoskeleton of the neurons,
and it turns out it is storing a HOLOGRAM of the visual
input to the eye.
A very READABLE account of this experimental confirmation
of Pribrams's hologram theory is given at:
http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/
which give a really good explanation of all this in SIMPLE
language.
Finally, of particular interest to you perhaps, is that
Karen De Valois is not the only WOMAN in the forefront of
microtubule research, it turns out that one of the bedrock
scientific papers published on the theory of optical
coherence in microtubules was published by Mari Jibu who is
also a female. This famous paper was co authored by Karl
Pribram, Stuart Hameroff and other luminaries in microtubule
research and is online at:
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/Quantumoptical_Jibu_000.pdf
In closing I notice that you are a newbie on Usenet and
apparently interested in theories of the brain. Welcome
aboard, according to De Valois and Jibu bilogical research
into consciousness seems to be a good opportunity for women.
Trish Raggens
Uhm.. but how come convensional neuroscientists just
ignore Pribram's researches and theories? You can't see
Pribram stuff mentioned in any college Neurology
textbooks, courses, etc..
Trish
> Finally, of particular interest to you perhaps, is that
> Karen De Valois is not the only WOMAN in the forefront of
> microtubule research, it turns out that one of the bedrock
> scientific papers published on the theory of optical
> coherence in microtubules was published by Mari Jibu who is
> also a female. This famous paper was co authored by Karl
> Pribram, Stuart Hameroff and other luminaries in microtubule
> research and is online at:http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/Quantumoptical_Jibu_000...
> In closing I notice that you are a newbie on Usenet and
> apparently interested in theories of the brain. Welcome
> aboard, according to De Valois and Jibu bilogical research
> into consciousness seems to be a good opportunity for women.
>
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Primary sitehttp://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================- Hide quoted text -
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Doublessly for the same reason Sigmund Freud is maligned
nowadays in college textbooks... he's what you call a
"theoretical psychologist" a title which produces instant
enmity and fits of jealous rage among line professional
academics, including textbook writers.
Believe me I know wherof I speak. 20 journals including
Hans Eysenck personally turned down my discovery of the
Structural Model of Personality before Pergamon Press
published it (Hammond 1994). And no one would publish my
discovery of the world's first scientific proof of God until
I submitted to the Noetic Journal where KARL H. PRIBRAM, of
all people,was one of the editors (Hammond 2003).
Pribram published 200 experimental papers and 200
theoretical papers as well as a dozen books and is world
famous despite being loathed by textbook writers and other
run of the mill academics.
>
>
>
>> � �Finally, of particular interest to you perhaps, is that
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>news:vdq055l16nd3g60pe...@4ax.com...
>[Geopelia]
>St Paul wouldn't have known anything about the cytoskeleton.
>
>
[Hammond]
You're absolutely right, he sure didn't, which leads to a
mystery.
The ancient Egyptians who originated the theory of life
after death including a final judgement where one's heart
was weighed against a feather and if one passed the
deceased's " Ba" (aka soul) went to IARU, the "field of
reeds" a paradisaical land of plenty where the dead hoped to
spend "eternity". And so did the Romans who thought the
soul went to the Elysian fields, the Greco-Roman version of
Iaru.
The mystery is where and how the quasi-scientific
description of death given by St. Paul crept into the story.
It must be based on the Greek idea of the "immortality of
the soul" whereby Paul envisioned the soul as a "spiritual
body" thus accomodating the "resurrection" of Christ which
had already become popular belief by St. Paul's time.
There is NO DOUBT when all is said and done that the
Christian theory of life after death is a PSYCHOLOGICALLY
THEORY... meaning that it comes down through ancient history
as a conjecture based on purely psychological observation,
of:
1. Nocturnal dreams and the obvious similarity between
death and sleep (Hypnos vs. Thanatos)
2. Trances, hallucinations, sleepwalking, hypnotism, etc.
If life after death is literally true, it certainly is
amazing that the ancients figured it out without any modern
science whatsoever.
However, it is now KNOWN AND PROVEN that they were
correct about:
1. The existence of God (curvature of subjective reality)
2. The existence of the Trinity (trinary cypernetic loop)
3. The Four Gospel Canon (Bicameral 2-party system)
4. The Cross/Egyptian Ankh (quadrature of human anatomy)
5. The existence of 12 (13 actually) Olympian gods.
6. The existence of a supreme God (Akhenaton, Moses)
7. The existence of a "Creation" in wch. Man appeared.
Turns out classical Religion was SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT
on all 7 of the above points (Hammond, 2003). So if they
were RIGHT about all that, they MAY BE right about Life
After Death too. At least, I wouldn't bet my life against
it!
>
>
>But how can individual cells of the body communicate intelligibly with each
>other?
>
>
[Hammond]
Turns out there is a "micro-nervous system" inside every
cell that they didn't even know about 20 years ago.
This micro nervous system is called the CYTOSKELETON and
it can communicate the same way the neuronal system in the
brain communicates... only a billion times faster! This
cytoskeleton is composed of hollow tubes (only 25 nanometers
in diameter) which act like fiber-optics links carrying
modulated laser light signals. Every cell in the brain and
even the ENTIRE BODY is interconnected by "fiber optics"
carrying laser signals as Frohlich's Frequency... microwave
to infared frequency.
There is plenty of scope for a rational mechanism of life
after death... believe me... it's POSSIBLE. That doesn't
mean it is of course... it only means it's scientifically
possible.... how PROBABLE it is still remains the REAL
QUESTION.
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>news:jkb5559s2fmgbir6g...@4ax.com...
>[Geopelia]
>The idea of life after death may have been around for
> a long time before the Egyptians. Some Neanderthals
> are known to have buried their dead, and even included
>flowers in the grave. Elephants hang around the bones
> of their dead and handle them with their trunks. Dolphins
> carry dead baby dolphins around for some time.We don't
> know what goes on in their minds. Perhaps the idea of
> survival after death is a very deep animal instinct.
>
>
[Hammond]
Higher animals are certainly aware of psychology and
hence must have some notion of God. Certainly if there is a
literal life after death it's existence must impact animals
similar to the way it impacts Man only less so since animals
have much lower cognitive ability.
According to the theologians there are plenty of animals
in Heaven.
>
>
>> The mystery is where and how the quasi-scientific
>> description of death given by St. Paul crept into the story.
>> It must be based on the Greek idea of the "immortality of
>> the soul" whereby Paul envisioned the soul as a "spiritual
>> body" thus accomodating the "resurrection" of Christ which
>> had already become popular belief by St. Paul's time.
>
>
[Geopelia]
>Jews believed in "Abraham's bosom"at the time of Christ.
> Remember the parable of Dives and Lazarus? Luke 16 19-31
>I wonder how early on that belief came in.
>
>
[Hammond]
The Jews didn't pick up life after death from the
Egyptians as it doesn't appear in the Torah at all or in the
OT until the Book of Daniel. Probably suspecting the belief
was was an Egyptian trick, they didn't go for the idea until
they picked it up during the Babalonian captivity around 800
BC from the Zoroastrians.
Recall that the Sun God of Egypt was already 1,000 years
old when Moses first noticed God in a burning bush. Fact is
the Egyptian Sun God Ra and the Pantheon of animal headed
demigods (personality types) recorded in the Egyptian Book
of the Dead (the ancient Egyptian Bible) was actually as
sophisticated, if not MORE sophisticated than the Jewish Old
Testament.
One must realize that the Jews are the world's leading
physical (psychological) EXEMPLARS of the saving grace of
God, and are not necessarily the world's leading experts on
the THEORY of God. Fact is the ancient Egyptian religion
produced by the worlds first and most successful and longest
lived empire was FAR MORE sophisticated theologically than
the Old Testament is.
Just as it is often said that the ARABS preserved
Aristotle during the Dark Ages, it might be said that the
Jews preserved the Egyptian Religion during the Greco-Roman
period of Paganism.
>
>
>> There is NO DOUBT when all is said and done that the
>> Christian theory of life after death is a PSYCHOLOGICALLY
>> THEORY... meaning that it comes down through ancient history
>> as a conjecture based on purely psychological observation,
>> of:
>>
>> 1. Nocturnal dreams and the obvious similarity between
>> death and sleep (Hypnos vs. Thanatos)
>> 2. Trances, hallucinations, sleepwalking, hypnotism, etc.
>
>
>[Geopelia]
>"For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
>When we have shuffled off this mortal coil...."
>(Hamlet)
>
[Hammond]
Ah yes... obviously Shakespeare was unsure about life
after death... but he knew one thing for sure... that the
theory of life after death logically originates in the mere
existence of the nocturnal dream... an opiniion I fully
agree with as a scientist.
>>
>> If life after death is literally true, it certainly is
>> amazing that the ancients figured it out without any modern
>> science whatsoever.
>> However, it is now KNOWN AND PROVEN that they were
>> correct about:
>>
>> 1. The existence of God (curvature of subjective reality)
>> 2. The existence of the Trinity (trinary cypernetic loop)
>> 3. The Four Gospel Canon (Bicameral 2-party system)
>> 4. The Cross/Egyptian Ankh (quadrature of human anatomy)
>> 5. The existence of 12 (13 actually) Olympian gods.
>> 6. The existence of a supreme God (Akhenaton, Moses)
>> 7. The existence of a "Creation" in wch. Man appeared.
>>
>> Turns out classical Religion was SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT
>> on all 7 of the above points (Hammond, 2003). So if they
>> were RIGHT about all that, they MAY BE right about Life
>> After Death too. At least, I wouldn't bet my life against
>> it!
>
>
>[Hammond]
>Some of those points are debatable.
>
>
[Hammond]
No, they are certainly not debatable in a competent
scientific forum.. of course ANYTHING can be endlessly
debated by amateurs on Usenet, even whether the sky is blue
or does 2+2=4.
>
>
>4.
>The Cross was just a Roman means of execution.
>
>
[Hammond]
Wrong, it was the Egyptian symbol (heiroglyph) for
"life":
_ 0_
|
Ankh="life"
for 3,000 years before the Romans and was carried in hand by
the royal families in Egypt morning, noon and night as shown
in a thousand ancient Egyptian illustrations.
The reason it is the symbol fo "life" is that it is in
the shape of the (crusiform) structure of the human body...
and naturally when the Romans sought a form to nail a body
to, again, it turned out to be cruciform.
The reason that the human body is cruciform is that it is
an axial quadrature originating in the first orthogonal
cleavages of the egg, and is ultimately caused by the fact
that space itself is "cruciform" due to its being
3-dimensional orthogonal. this explains why all animals
have 4 legs and why for instance there is no such thing as a
3-legged animal.
>[Geopelia]
>It may not even have been cross shaped, more like an upright and crossbar in
>a T form.
>Jesus only carried the crossbar, some think.
>The top part of the cross usually carries the scroll INRI in pictures.
>
>(Didn't the Cathars believe in the T cross? And I think Jehovah's Witnesses
>show the cross as just an upright stake.
>St Andrew's cross is X shaped).
>
>
[Hammond]
MAKES NO DIFFERENCE...
The Cross (Ankh) etc was already the central symbol of
religion 3,000 years before Christ and it DOES originate in
the "cross structure" of the human body (which causes a
cross structure in the human brain) which causes a cross
structure in human PSYCHOLOGY... therefore the "idealized"
(christian) Cross has come down to us from ancient history
irregardless of what they actually nailed Jesus of Nazareth
to.
>>>
>>>But how can individual cells of the body communicate intelligibly with
>>>each
>>>other?
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Turns out there is a "micro-nervous system" inside every
>> cell that they didn't even know about 20 years ago.
>> This micro nervous system is called the CYTOSKELETON and
>> it can communicate the same way the neuronal system in the
>> brain communicates... only a billion times faster! This
>> cytoskeleton is composed of hollow tubes (only 25 nanometers
>> in diameter) which act like fiber-optics links carrying
>> modulated laser light signals. Every cell in the brain and
>> even the ENTIRE BODY is interconnected by "fiber optics"
>> carrying laser signals as Frohlich's Frequency... microwave
>> to infared frequency.
>> There is plenty of scope for a rational mechanism of life
>> after death... believe me... it's POSSIBLE. That doesn't
>> mean it is of course... it only means it's scientifically
>> possible.... how PROBABLE it is still remains the REAL
>> QUESTION.
>
>[Gopelia]
>It there any way of finding the Cytoskeleton, or is it just theory?
> and can it be found in a dead body? Would it be visible to an electron microscope
>in a cell on a slide?
>
>
[Hammond]
Oh yes.... there are thousand of scientists studying the
cytoskeleton all day long in laboratories around the world
and have been for decades... with microscopes, electron
microscopes, x-rays, radiation, microwaves, lasers, blah,
blah blah. MICROTUBULE RESEARCH is a cottage industry in
academic laboratories these days.
A simple gopogler search will point you to many pictures
of the cytoskeleton and microtubules on the Internet.
>
>
>That raises the interesting question of transplants. What happens to the
>cytoskeleton of a transplanted heart or kidney?
>
>
>Does it connect to the recipient's body's cytoskeleton, or remain separate?
>
>Do blood corpuscles have a cytoskeleton, and if so how are transfusions
>affected? "The blood is the life" as some believe.
>
>And what would happen at the death of the recipient? Could the donor's
>memories get mixed with the recipient's?
>
>Geopelia
>
[Hammond]
There is certainly no COGNITIVE memory stored outside the
brain, therefore unless you were contemplating a "brain
transplant" I don't see any complications for the theory of
life after death.
There was recently a person who had a "face
transplant"... o.k. so now the person looks in the mirror
and sees somebody else. Apparently this is just what she
will see in heaven whern she gets there.. the same face she
left Earth with... but doublessly in the course of being
"beatified" into a "perfect body" I would fully imagine that
her original face would be restored.. indeed perfected.
Remember the REASON we go to Heaven is not to just live
some more of this existence.. it is to achieve a SUPERIOR
BEATIFIED EXISTENCE in which the body reaches full growth
and the brain reaches full perceptual power. The EFFECT of
this cannot be overstated... it necessarily would result in
a PHENOMENAL AND MIRACULOUS experience of life... so
miraculous that it is called "eternal life" even though it
may only last for days, weeks, or years before we finally
die... we die in Heaven in a CONDITION of "eternal life".
PS.. please don't snip sci.physics.relativity from your
relply or I won't see it since that's where I'm posting
from, being a physicist.
Juan R.
(...)
> Believe me I know wherof I speak. 20 journals including
> Hans Eysenck personally turned down my discovery of the Structural Model
> of Personality before Pergamon Press published it (Hammond 1994). And
> no one would publish my discovery of the world's first scientific proof
> of God until I submitted to the Noetic Journal where KARL H. PRIBRAM, of
> all people,was one of the editors (Hammond 2003).
No one would publish your discovery of the world's first scientific proof
of God because you gave none.
You are just trying to give your religious beliefs some tone of authority
by misaplying the term "scientific".
alien8er
> >cones as comprising arrays of cylindrical waveguide segments embedded
> >in a dielectric cladding with a different refractive index such that
> >they together form optical antennae for capturing incoming light.
>
> [Hammond]
> More importantly Russ and Karen De Valois in a classic
> set of experiments in the '90's at Berkeley proved
> conclusively that visual striata cells store visual memory
> as a FOURIER TRANSFORM of the image, NOT as a "bitmap" of
> the image. This means the image is stored as a HOLOGRAM.
Correct, demonstrably at the gross optical cortex level. I was
attempting to address data storage "technologies" at smaller scales.
> > Some may claim that even granting the existence of optical energy
> >propagating along microtubules within a given neuron, information
> >cannot get from one neuron to another across synapses.
>
> [Hammond]
> Na.. your information is 20 years out of date. they now know
> there is quantumj tunneling not only within cells but
> between cells.
This is where the issue of plausibility is rooted. Demonstrating the
holographic nature of image processing at the gross optical cortex
level (or at any level from minor ganglia on up) is simple; all you
need are enough fine electrodes and off the shelf electronic signal
processing capacity to disambiguate between linear and nonlinear cell
group interactions.
For that matter, we also know that much pre-processing is done in
the retina as respects static and moving edge detection and such.
As for photon tunneling within/between cells, we even now do not
have the equivalent optical and near-optical wavelength pickups and
processors to unambiguously demonstrate such tunneling (as non-
biological machinery, that is).
We do have sufficient _theoretical_ tools to indicate that such
tunneling _can_ occur, and what we will see when we _are_ able to look
for it, but we simply do not have the means to get the desired
evidence in hand.
Another hurdle there is the fact that theory tells us that signals
that propagate strongly enough to carry information along microtubules
will be within a given bandwidth mostly determined by the dimensions
of the tubules, modulo those of the corrugations (compare with full-
size corrugated waveguides designed for flexibility; nature got there
first yet again) which will be able to "tunnel" from one tubule to
another as evanescent waves (the "potential" part of a guided wave's
fields outside the guide) under certain circumstances, but obviously
not constantly or there would be no information transfer, just
unordered chaos.
Those circumstances will include but not be limited to the proximity
of two tubules, the field strength within the two tubules, and the
instantaneous composition of the cytoplasm between them. Those factors
can be considered part of the "switching matrix" that drives the data
storage mechanisms I was talking about above.
Proximity will dominate, all other things being equal, because
evanescent waves' field strength decays very rapidly with distance,
proportional to wavelength. That means that short-wavelength signals
can share between tubules within a given cell easily, between two
cells not so easily.
The biggest problem though is that the dimensions of microtubules
considered as circular-cross-section waveguides limits their frequency
capacity to soft X-rays:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713628818
Soft X-ray detectors that can fit into a microtubule and be
connected to a PC for data reduction just don't exist yet.
As for communication between microtubules in different cells, there
is the possibility of multimode propagation; that is to say that
microtubules carry photons of soft X-rays which can interact with
those in other microtubules within the same cell, _and_ lower-
frequency photons that can reach other cells. That of course
complicates the possible detection machinery.
Worse is the possibility of direct QM "waves" being the actual
storage/procesing medium:
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/consciousevents.html
(kinda on the woo-woo side but does give a fairly straight
accounting of possible synchronized-superposition-wave computing in
the cytoskeleton)
I say "worse" because there's no apparent way to extract information
about what's going on in such a network except by using another as a
receiving antenna etc., and that's what we call "corrupted by
subjectivity".
> Long story short... an in depth review of the literature now
> shows an overwhelming probablility that the entire
> cytoskeleton of the brain, and even the entire body is
> optically connected.
Correct again, but remember that several different frequency bands
must be involved, all probably carrying different, though interacting,
data sets.
> [Hammond]
> The REAL PROBLEM with the theory of life after death is
> not whether it is POSSIBLE since that is now easily
> demonstrated using conventional cytoskeleton phenomenology.
> No, the real problem remains the question of whether the
> conjecture of life aftrer death is RACE IFPSO CREDIBLE in
> the first place.... and that is more of a psychological
> question than a physics question. Any thoughts on the
> CREDIBILITY i.e. the PRIMA FACIE PLAUSIBILITY of the notion
> of life after death?
Breaking it down point by point:
To assign credibility or plausibility to the idea, one must first
accept the proposition that the personality (mind, soul, whatever term
one considers "acceptable") is physically localizeable as an
electromagnetic phenomenon supported by one or more of the body's
bioelectric systems.
This will probably be the most difficult point for most people to
accept, since most religions and for that matter most materialists
will say that anything we might consider qualifying as a "soul" cannot
possibly be physical in nature.
Assuming we can get past that, it must be accepted that the
personality need not be exclusively supported in the brain's gross
synaptic network, that it may be also at least partly supported in the
networked cytoskeletal systems of the entire body's cells as a literal
hologram.
We know unambiguously that the network exists. We know unambiguously
that the individual elements of it (the microtubules) have the
necessary and sufficient physical properties to permit them to act as
relatively low-loss waveguides at optical and near-optical wavelengths
and that their physical arrangement suggests that they form an active
network. It is apparent that its functions would not be dependent on
the gross electrochemistry of _living_ cells, but rather on the
network's topology which will be relatively unaffected for some
considerable time after body/brain death.
(As an aside, consider that Michael Jackson's brain was removed as
part of the post-mortem and is soaking in formaldehyde for a couple of
weeks before being sectioned to look for evidence of long-term drug
damage; his body will be buried without it!)
What we are lacking AFAIK is a single unambiguous example of data
processing in any form by such a network in "lower" lifeforms, which
is traditionally a potent convincer.
Find that, and you have a difficult point to dismiss.
Mark L. Fergerson
PS sci.biology blah blah Google Groups blah blah.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You gotch yer signals crossed Senor Tightass.
I said both papers W-E-R-E PUBLISHED:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
hanson
... Hammond, the Beastialist's, nocturnal wet dreams....
......... ahahaha... ahahahahaha.... ahhahahaha .........
>
Gergi/Grodi/Georgi, the Nazi and Arch Anti-Semite, aka
Hemorrhoid Hammond "George Hammond" is currently
posting under the nym of <Nowh...@notspam.com>
.. and gave voluminous and vociferous reason why he
is a self-certified and self aggrandizing psychopath who
must have been force-fed massive ODs when he was
in lock down because his persistent mental hemorrhoids.
Here is his tripe, duly edited and shortened for clarity, in
which he, Grodi Hemmi-Hammo, wrote:
>
Hemmie-Hammond wrote:
A"death dream" (an afterlife) a week long that could be the deathbed
observers would see the dearly departed die in a millisecond, however
the deceased would observe that he lived on for another week in paradise!
Life After Death is actually life before death that only appears to occur
>>
The Jews didn't pick up life after death from the Egyptians. The Sun God
experts on the THEORY of God. The ancient Egyptians produced FAR
MORE sophisticated theology than the Old Testament is.
>>
1. Nocturnal dreams and the obvious similarity between
death and sleep (Hypnos vs. Thanatos)
2. Trances, hallucinations, sleepwalking, hypnotism, etc.
agree with as a scientist.
2. The existence of the Trinity (trinary cypernetic loop)
3. The Four Gospel Canon (Bicameral 2-party system)
4. The Cross/Egyptian Ankh (quadrature of human anatomy)
5. The existence of 12 (13 actually) Olympian gods.
6. The existence of a supreme God (Akhenaton, Moses)
7. The existence of a "Creation" in wch. Man appeared.
>>
SUPERIOR BEATIFIED [beastified?] EXISTENCE
[ ---------... "There are plenty of animals in Heaven". ------- ]
The EFFECT of this cannot be overstated... it necessarily
before we finally die... we die in Heaven in a CONDITION of
"eternal life".
>
PS.. please don't snip sci.physics.relativity from your
relply or I won't see it since that's where I'm posting
from, being a physicist.
>
ahahahaha.... Hemmie, you poor sicko, you are confused.
You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment
due to your hemorrhoidal tripe above and you would have
been much more believable if you'd simplyhad said:
>
1) God gave curvature to Hammond's Hemorrhoids ... and..
2) God has bent the mind of Gergi/Grodi/Georgi Hammond.
>
Isn't that 2-liner a much better proof then your silly g_uvfy poof
of god, which you have endowed now with bestial attributes.
So, therefore your biz card/sig below has been adjusted
accordingly to reflect your Grodi state of mind:
>
=====================================
HAMMORRHOID'S POOF OF GOD WEBSHITE
Primary site [all corrected for accuracy]
http://webspaced-out.com/hemmies/grodi_hammond
1st Hemorrhoid's mirror site
http://georgi.com/scientific_Poof_of_god
2nd Hemorrhoid's mirror site
http://Poof-of-god.on-the-freehustling.com
GOD=G_uv (an un-godly poof by G_oofy George)
THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
=======================================
>
Thanks for the laughs, Grodi, you Aryian Brown Shirt.
ahahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Trish Raggens
>
> (kinda on the woo-woo side but does give a fairly straight
> accounting of possible synchronized-superposition-wave computing in
> the cytoskeleton)
>
> I say "worse" because there's no apparent way to extract information
> about what's going on in such a network except by using another as a
> receiving antenna etc., and that's what we call "corrupted by
> subjectivity".
I do Reiki, I have such mastery of Reiki that I can detect gross
"energy" in a person's body. This gross "energy" can be
inside him/her in any part of the body for years causing
chronic pain. I dissolve it by a certain Reiki frequency
(whitist green) and transfer the diseased "energy"
into salt or crystal where they are permanently dissolved.
All of this without any physical contact. There are millions
of Reiki practioners and the amazing success they
experience. There is also other synonyms for Reiki
therapy such as Therapeutic Touch, etc. What do you
think of Reiki in terms of this cytoskeleton and optical
frequencies thing? What other principles are involved?
There is obviously a quantum component to it as we
can treat patients even miles away or non-locally.
Thanks.
Trish
> PS sci.biology blah blah Google Groups blah blah.- Hide quoted text -
Trish Raggens
> In closing I notice that you are a newbie on Usenet and
> apparently interested in theories of the brain. Welcome
> aboard, according to De Valois and Jibu bilogical research
> into consciousness seems to be a good opportunity for women.
>
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Dr. Hammond,
I know how holography works. Laser coherence beams are needed
to decode the interference patterns back into the original images.
What monochromatic coherence beams in the human body functions
as the decoding laser beam to decode the holographic states in
the body into sensory or memory information?
Trish
John Stafford
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press.
Pergamon Press was just a hype, capitalistic, unrecognized effort to
suck in your dollars and everyone elses'. It is dead. As it should be.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about asshole.
Pergamon was bought out by ELSEVIER the biggest
scientific publisher in the world.
ELSEVIER has my paper listed on thier website where I
notice they are charging $31.50 for a copy of it:
of which I don't get a dime lest I be accused of commercial
advertising by some numb basted like you.
John Stafford
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:02:44 -0500, John Stafford
> <now...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
>>> Pergamon Press.
>> Pergamon Press was just a hype, capitalistic, unrecognized effort to
>> suck in your dollars and everyone elses'. It is dead. As it should be.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> You don't know what you're talking about asshole.
> Pergamon was bought out by ELSEVIER the biggest
> scientific publisher in the world.
> ELSEVIER has my paper listed on thier website where I
> notice they are charging $31.50 for a copy of it:
Like I said - hype, a rip-off.
Don't you find it curious that 'scholarship' has become the most
privatized capitalist enclave on the net? Scholarship, my ass.
John Stafford
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:02:44 -0500, John Stafford
> <now...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>> > George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in New Ideas In
>> Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press.
>> Pergamon Press was just a hype, capitalistic, unrecognized effort to
>> suck in your dollars and everyone elses'. It is dead. As it should be.
>> >
> [Hammond]
> You don't know what you're talking about asshole.
> Pergamon was bought out by ELSEVIER the biggest
> scientific publisher in the world.
> ELSEVIER has my paper listed on thier website where I
> notice they are charging $31.50 for a copy of it:
Link? Their search turns up nothing of yours. Regardless, you could not
pay me to read your SOG again.
George Hammond
>> >Mar�a L. Calvo and Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan explains the rods and
>> >cones as comprising arrays of cylindrical waveguide segments embedded
>> >in a dielectric cladding with a different refractive index such that
>> >they together form optical antennae for capturing incoming light.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> � �More importantly Russ and Karen De Valois in a classic
>> set of experiments in the '90's at Berkeley proved
>> conclusively that visual striata cells store visual memory
>> as a FOURIER TRANSFORM of the image, NOT as a "bitmap" of
>> the image. �This means the image is stored as a HOLOGRAM.
>
> Correct, demonstrably at the gross optical cortex level. I was
>attempting to address data storage "technologies" at smaller scales.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Well, the point is if "memory" is not erased by random
damage to the brain because "memory is a hologram", and we
now have good reason to believe that memory is actually
stored at the microtubule level by MAP polymerization in the
microtubule network, then this alone tells us that the
cytoskeleton myst be storing a "hologram".
>
>
<snip>
>
> The biggest problem though is that the dimensions of microtubules
>considered as circular-cross-section waveguides limits their frequency
>capacity to soft X-rays:
>
>http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713628818
>
> Soft X-ray detectors that can fit into a microtubule and be
>connected to a PC for data reduction just don't exist yet.
>
>
[Hammond]
In a VAST field of literature on microtubules this is the
ONLY paper I've ever seen that suggests X-RAYS as the
optical frequency inside the microtubules.
This paper was written by a couple of engineers in the
Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, Czech
Republic. Frankly I can't give it a lot of credibility. For
one thing X-RAYS would penetrate right through biological
tissue, they certainly wouldn't turn corners and follow MAP
interconnection piping.
The overwhelming majority of authorities are convinced
the relevant optical frequency is more likely in the
infrared (Hameroff, Jibu, Dicke, Mershin, Nanopoulos,
Tuszynski, Hagan, et al.)
This is because the microtublules are not a "metal
waveguide" with a cutoff frequency, rather, they are a
dielectric "water maser" containing vincinal water which is
the source of the IR photons via superradiance and induced
transparency, both well known quantum laser effects
(superradiance was discovered by Robert Dicke of CMBR fame
btw.) None of these authorities sees any problem with 25
nanometer water maser microtubules conducting IR photons.
<snip>
>
>> Long story short... an in depth review of the literature now
>> shows an overwhelming probablility that the entire
>> cytoskeleton of the brain, and even the entire body is
>> optically connected.
>
> Correct again, but remember that several different frequency bands
>must be involved, all probably carrying different, though interacting,
>data sets.
>
>
[Hammond]
Yeah... it's complicated. For one thing a lot of
theorists think that there is optical pulse mode DIPOLE
SOLITON transmission through the vincinal water. I suspect
that there is also rather straight forward IR transmission.
Frohlich of course, and there has been experimental
confirmation, that there is MICROWAVE transmisssion through
or along the microtubules. The final picture involves
probably hundreds of different quantum mechanical phenomena.
Whew what a challenge... a hundred years of work no doubt!
But I'm not here to try and solve all that, all I want to
know is wheter it is plausible that a memory and retrieval
system is available at optical speeds that would be capable
of underwriting a rational theory of life after death so
called. So far, I think it more than likely that there is!
>
>
>> [Hammond]
>> � �The REAL PROBLEM with the theory of life after death is
>> not whether it is POSSIBLE since that is now easily
>> demonstrated using conventional cytoskeleton phenomenology.
>> No, the real problem remains the question of whether the
>> conjecture of life aftrer death is RACE IFPSO CREDIBLE in
>> the first place.... and that is more of a psychological
>> question than a physics question. �Any thoughts on the
>> CREDIBILITY i.e. the PRIMA FACIE PLAUSIBILITY of the notion
>> of life after death?
>
> Breaking it down point by point:
>
> To assign credibility or plausibility to the idea, one must first
>accept the proposition that the personality (mind, soul, whatever term
>one considers "acceptable") is physically localizeable as an
>electromagnetic phenomenon supported by one or more of the body's
>bioelectric systems.
>
>
[Hammond]
I think that is clearly "possible" if not "plausible,
given what we know so far about the microtubule transmission
and memory storage possibilities.
>
>
> This will probably be the most difficult point for most people to
>accept, since most religions and for that matter most materialists
>will say that anything we might consider qualifying as a "soul" cannot
>possibly be physical in nature.
>
>
[Hammond]
We don't have to worry about technically unqualified
people, especially religious people. Unlike unqualified
atheists, incompetent religious people are quite reasonable
by comparison, in my experience.
>
>
> Assuming we can get past that,
>
>
[Hammond]
I'm confident we can.
>
> it must be accepted that the
>personality need not be exclusively supported in the brain's gross
>synaptic network, that it may be also at least partly supported in the
>networked cytoskeletal systems of the entire body's cells as a literal
>hologram.
>
>
[Hammond]
That's my suspicion! And also that is Karl Pribram's well
known and published belief btw.
>
>
> We know unambiguously that the network exists. We know unambiguously
>that the individual elements of it (the microtubules) have the
>necessary and sufficient physical properties to permit them to act as
>relatively low-loss waveguides at optical and near-optical wavelengths
>and that their physical arrangement suggests that they form an active
>network. It is apparent that its functions would not be dependent on
>the gross electrochemistry of _living_ cells, but rather on the
>network's topology which will be relatively unaffected for some
>considerable time after body/brain death.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
True, it is a known fact that the cytoskeleton remains
viable for up to half an hour after death. Hameroff often
cites this fact. They discovered this when they noticed
that brain tissue remains optically transparent for half an
hour after death, and then slowly becomes opaque, apparently
due to the breakdown of the cytoskeleton.
>
>
> (As an aside, consider that Michael Jackson's brain was removed as
>part of the post-mortem and is soaking in formaldehyde for a couple of
>weeks before being sectioned to look for evidence of long-term drug
>damage; his body will be buried without it!)
>
>
[Hammond]
There is a rumor they are going to launch Jackson's brain
into earth orbit on a commercial French rocket for $25
million dollars, and then release it into a trajectory
toward the Moon where it is expected to crash land and the
hole will be named "Jackson Crater" making Michael Jackson
the "first person buried on the Moon". A final testimony to
the legendary "moonwalker"!
>
>
> What we are lacking AFAIK is a single unambiguous example of data
>processing in any form by such a network in "lower" lifeforms, which
>is traditionally a potent convincer.
>
> Find that, and you have a difficult point to dismiss.
> Mark L. Fergerson
>
>
[Hammond]
Well, Roger Penrose is famous for citing the Paramecium
as exactly such an example in _Shadows of the Mind_. It is
an animal which has no neurons and no brain, but it does
have a cytoskeleton containing microtubules. It is able to
hunt, avoid obstacles, maneuver, find a mate and shows
limited learning ability. It has long been considered a
convincing argument that these functions are being carried
out by the microtubule "nervous system" inside this single
celled animal!
Juan R.
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:37:59 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>>George Hammond wrote on Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:00:09 -0400:
>>
>>(...)
>>
>>> Believe me I know wherof I speak. 20 journals including
>>> Hans Eysenck personally turned down my discovery of the Structural
>>> Model of Personality before Pergamon Press published it (Hammond
>>> 1994). And no one would publish my discovery of the world's first
>>> scientific proof of God until I submitted to the Noetic Journal where
>>> KARL H. PRIBRAM, of all people,was one of the editors (Hammond 2003).
>>
>>No one would publish your discovery of the world's first scientific
>>proof of God because you gave none.
>>You are just trying to give your religious beliefs some tone of
>>authority by misaplying the term "scientific".
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> You gotch yer signals crossed Senor Tightass.
>
> I said both papers W-E-R-E PUBLISHED:
Since I quoted above the part of your message saying that you got finally
it published in the "Noetic journal", I may conclude that you did not
undertood the irony. Publishing in Noetic Journal is very much as not
publishing at all.
For rest of reader who you are trolling with you scientific-proof-of-God
nonsense, I will add extracts from the "Noetic journal" statement of
purpose, showing this is self-proclaimed scientific journal that says
that science is inadequate for its own subject:
"Welcome to The Noetic Journal website. [...] The Noetic Journal seeks
to fill this gap by boldly addressing a complete epistemology that is
not just confined to current myopic limits of scientific
phenomenology. Science is inadequate to complete the task of
explaining consciousness without being drastically reformulated. [...]
A call for a new and deeper ontological theory is being answered—one
that sees beyond the phenomenology of measurement or perception into
the deeper noumenon. Developing ontological models suggest that the
mind can be quantized as a physical noumenon and that there is a
subquantum conscious domain imbedded in a teleological cosmology.
[...] Noetics is the study of mind which utilizes the rigors of
science, the logic of philosophy, and the humility and absolute truth
of theology."
http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/purpose.html
> Peer reviewed publications:
>
> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press. Online
> copy of peer/published
> paper is posted at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>
> Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
> Press)
> Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
> ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD
> WEBSITE
> Primary site
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
Juan R.
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:02:44 -0500, John Stafford <now...@nowhere.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press.
>>
>>Pergamon Press was just a hype, capitalistic, unrecognized effort to
>>suck in your dollars and everyone elses'. It is dead. As it should be.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> You don't know what you're talking about asshole.
> Pergamon was bought out by ELSEVIER the biggest
> scientific publisher in the world.
They are the biggest in economic terms (many journals, many money), but
far from being the more important in *scientific* terms.
Indeed Elsevier has got a reputation of publising journals with the
appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact
contained only articles favourable to 'sponsors' as Merck drugs.
There is a recent thread in sci.physics.research title of the thread is
"Journal of chaos, solitons and fractals") about the scientific polemic
with this Elsevier journal where the former editor was self-publishing
his own papers. As someone reports in spr, it seems that after being
forced to resign Elsevier will be publishing:
"a huge backlog of around 900 articles, which were already accepted
under El Naschie.
Elsevier has decided to print these articles without further peer-
review."
> ELSEVIER has my paper listed on thier website where I
> notice they are charging $31.50 for a copy of it:
Indeed, Elsevier has also got a reputation of excesive profit. The idea
is that you do the work for free and send to them who will charge a large
amount for readers to access your work. This is not specific of
commercial publishers but also of non-profit ones as APS, ACS...
There is a detailed discussion of economic and copyright issues in the
cited spr thread "Journal of chaos, solitons and fractals".
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VD4-460RN9N-6-1&_cdi=5972&_user=10&_orig=browse&_coverDate=07%
2F31%2F1994&_sk=999879997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzb-
zSkzS&md5=01d7dda5a3409a7c08336df27fa35058&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
>
> of which I don't get a dime lest I be accused of commercial advertising
> by some numb basted like you. ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Primary site
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
marc
message
> For rest of reader who you are trolling with you scientific-proof-of-God
> nonsense, I will add extracts from the "Noetic journal" statement of
> purpose, showing this is self-proclaimed scientific journal that says
> that science is inadequate for its own subject:
>
> "Welcome to The Noetic Journal website. [...] The Noetic Journal seeks
> to fill this gap by boldly addressing a complete epistemology that is
> not just confined to current myopic limits of scientific
> phenomenology. Science is inadequate to complete the task of
> explaining consciousness without being drastically reformulated. [...]
> A call for a new and deeper ontological theory is being answered-one
> that sees beyond the phenomenology of measurement or perception into
> the deeper noumenon. Developing ontological models suggest that the
> mind can be quantized as a physical noumenon and that there is a
> subquantum conscious domain imbedded in a teleological cosmology.
> [...] Noetics is the study of mind which utilizes the rigors of
> science, the logic of philosophy, and the humility and absolute truth
> of theology."
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/purpose.html
Hammond desperately attempts to confer scientific credibility to his
semantic mush by citing publication in a journal that openly rejects
fundamental tenets of scientific investigation. Too funny, as
rationalisation of delusional belief often is.
Marc
alien8er
> On Jul 8, 5:35 am, alien8er <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
re: personality/soul/whatever as holographic software running on
cytoskeletal optical computer-
> > ...there's no apparent way to extract information
> > about what's going on in such a network except by using another as a
> > receiving antenna etc., and that's what we call "corrupted by
> > subjectivity".
>
> I do Reiki, I have such mastery of Reiki that I can detect gross
> "energy" in a person's body. This gross "energy" can be
> inside him/her in any part of the body for years causing
> chronic pain. I dissolve it by a certain Reiki frequency
> (whitist green) and transfer the diseased "energy"
> into salt or crystal where they are permanently dissolved.
> All of this without any physical contact. There are millions
> of Reiki practioners and the amazing success they
> experience. There is also other synonyms for Reiki
> therapy such as Therapeutic Touch, etc. What do you
> think of Reiki in terms of this cytoskeleton and optical
> frequencies thing? What other principles are involved?
> There is obviously a quantum component to it as we
> can treat patients even miles away or non-locally.
> Thanks.
>
> Trish
Hi Trish, I wasn't ignoring you, I am trying to do five or six
things at once.
Anyway. As far as I personally am concerned, Reiki does not work _on
me_ in my limited experience. But then the Masters involved told me I
have a rather unusual energy body or whatever the terminology was at
the time (this was near thirty years ago). I had strained something
painfully and nearly immobilizingly in my back and they couldn't touch
it; I had to crack it back into position myself, which is not unusual
for me.
I don't consider this proof or disproof of Reiki. You see, I am also
a practicioner of Aikido and have performed "feats of strength" that
are usually described as impossible for one of my weight, build, and
age (6' 0", 150 lbs, 56 yrs). If it isn't done by manipulation of ki,
then I have no explanation at all for what I and many others can do
that simply doesn't make sense according to ordinary physics. On the
one hand I can "feel" things apparently via ki, but that may be what I
referred to above as "corrupted by subjectivity". On the other hand I
can often cause others to feel things via the same channel, but that
may be what you might call "entrained subjectivity". On the other
other hand (what a famous science fiction writing duo call "the
gripping hand") Aikido masters can make _anyone_, whether student or
not, feel things via projected ki.
Now if ki (qi, chi, whatever spelling is preferred) is _not_ some
"mystical Eastern life force not subject to the laws of Western
physics", but is rather the message running on our cytoskeletal
medium, then it is indeed to be expected that some of us ought to be
able to learn how to manipulate it within our own bodies (as we can
learn to moderate our heartbeats) as well as how to project it and to
use it as another sense- to feel projections from others whether
intentional or not.
You will have noticed from George's and my discussion (and probably
others as well) that there's still some controversy about what
wavelengths of electromagnetic energy are involved, and if that's all
that is involved- the Hameroff-Penrose link I referenced suggests that
fluctuations in spacetime itself (fancy terminology basically meaning
very short-wavelength gravitational waves) are used as computational
states within the structure of the microtubules. If that's so, and ki
is subject to conscious manipulation, then there's a distinct
possibility that one could, with long-term sustained meditation, force
coherence among these fluctuations over much of one's body, making the
body act as a transmitting antenna with a considerable range (because
the waves would be coherent, like from a laser, instead of incoherent
like from a light bulb).
Such transmissions would likely be completely undetectable except by
a very similar antenna tuned, by virtue of its physical arrangement,
to the same frequencies of gravitational waves. Yes, that means
another human body. There are proposed designs for mechanical
transmitting and detecting devices (in other words, "antennas") for
gravitational waves but to my knowledge there has yet to be any
demonstration of _direct_ transmission and reception of actual
gravitational waves (except possibly some work by the late Robert L.
Forward, but nobody is carrying it on AFAIK).
As for a "quantum component", I'd suggest being very careful
bandying that about. It is usually used in the mundane sciences to
indicate something that occurs when light just isn't fast enough to be
the mediating agent, and unless you're treating E.T.'s, all your
potential patients are less than one-eighth of a light-second away
from you.
Mark L. Fergerson
George Hammond
<now...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:02:44 -0500, John Stafford
>> <now...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>>> > George Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in New Ideas In
>>> Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press.
>>> Pergamon Press was just a hype, capitalistic, unrecognized effort to
>>> suck in your dollars and everyone elses'. It is dead. As it should be.
>>> >
>> [Hammond]
>> You don't know what you're talking about asshole.
>> Pergamon was bought out by ELSEVIER the biggest
>> scientific publisher in the world.
>> ELSEVIER has my paper listed on thier website where I
>> notice they are charging $31.50 for a copy of it:
>
>Link? Their search turns up nothing of yours.
>
>
[Hammond]
I've told you once you're full of shit. The link leads
directly to A CITATION OF MY PAPER at ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC
LTD the world's largest and most premier scientific
publisher. If the link was too long for Usenet you can go
to:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0732118X
scroll down to where it says "volumes 11-20" then click on
"vol 12 Number 2" and you'll find my paper clearly cited and
you can even buy a copy for $31.50 from ELSEVIER, the
world's largest and most premier scientific publisher.
If you can't get you computer to work you can go to a
godamned university library and look it up in paper and ink:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
I know for a fact that it's sitting on the shelf at
Harvard's Widener Library as well as every other major
university library in the English speaking world.
Get the fuck outta here if you've got nothing on-topic to
say.
George Hammond
Gonz�lez-�lvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:16:12 -0400:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:02:44 -0500, John Stafford <now...@nowhere.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>>>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press.
>>>
>>>Pergamon Press was just a hype, capitalistic, unrecognized effort to
>>>suck in your dollars and everyone elses'. It is dead. As it should be.
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> You don't know what you're talking about asshole.
>> Pergamon was bought out by ELSEVIER the biggest
>> scientific publisher in the world.
>
>They are the biggest in economic terms (many journals, many money), but
>far from being the more important in *scientific* terms.
>
>
[Hammond]
ESLEVIER SCIETIFIC LTD has 7,000 journal editors, 70,000
editorial board members, 300,000 reviewers, and 600,000
authors publishing 2,000 journals, 19,000 books; with 2,000
new books each year.
DON'T TELL ME that my paper has not been published by a
REPUTABLE publisher.
get off this thread Zorro, if you don't have anything
on-topic to say.
George Hammond
Gonz�lez-�lvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:03:17 -0400:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:37:59 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
>> <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>
>>>George Hammond wrote on Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:00:09 -0400:
>>>
>Since I quoted above the part of your message saying that you got finally
>it published in the "Noetic journal", I may conclude that you did not
>undertood the irony. Publishing in Noetic Journal is very much as not
>publishing at all.
>
>
[Hammond]
Hey ZORRO, prof. Karl H. Pribram is one of the
editors... don't tell me it isn't a quality journal.
Get the fuck off this thread.
<SNIP NUMBUM)
Trish Raggens
What do you think of James Oschman. Which part of
his presentation is based on evidence and which is conjecture
that is refuted already. He wrote in
http://www.chalicebridge.com/Oschman&Daily/OschmansOnTheirBook.html
"The nuclear, cytoskeletal, and extracellular matrixes: A continuous
communication network
Evidence accumulates that nuclear matrices, cytoskeletons, and
extracellular matrices are mechanically, chemomechanically,
electromechanically, and functionally interconnected throughout the
organism. The entire molecular continuum has been called a tissue
tensegrity-matrix system or, simply, the living matrix. Oscillations
generated by cellular activities are conducted throughout the matrix,
and are altered by mechanical forces, hormones, growth factors, drugs,
and carcinogenesis. Amplitude and frequency domains of the
oscillations can be analyzed by Fourier and wavelet transforms. Viewed
whole, the living matrix is a dynamic solid state communication
network with global systemic regulatory roles. Major components of the
network have semiconductor properties, a high degree of order (e.g.
phospholipid bilayers and arrays of cytoskeletal, motor, and
connective tissue proteins), tensional integrity (tensegrity), and can
produce coherent self-sustaining oscillations with complex harmonics
(Fröhlich oscillations). Hence the network generates and transmits
various kinds of vibratory information and converts signals from one
form to another. Examples of such conversions include mechanical to
electrical and vice versa (piezoelectric effects), electrical to
photonic (electro-optical effects), mechanical to photonic (acoustic-
optical effects), etc. As a solid state network, the matrix and its
associated hydration layers are capable of conducting message units in
the form of electrons, holes, excitons, photons, phonons, protons
(proticity), solitons, etc. Where dissimilar molecules bond,
semiconductor junctions can form. These can function as solid state
devices capable of filtering, amplifying, attenuating, storing,
multiplexing, switching, and interpreting signals, as in integrated
circuits. By influencing enzyme activities and protein conformations,
oscillations generated and conducted throughout the living matrix can
coordinate dynamic nuclear, cytoplasmic, and extracellular activities
involved in growth, morphogenesis, regeneration, wound healing, and
disease resistance."
--------------
Mark, What do you think about Soliton waves and its possible
presence in the human body? Do Soliton waves occur in the
cytoskeleton or outside of it? Can it be projected outside the
body as Oschman claims it can possibly and the basis of
qi, chi, etc.?
Trish
> As for a "quantum component", I'd suggest being very careful
> bandying that about. It is usually used in the mundane sciences to
> indicate something that occurs when light just isn't fast enough to be
> the mediating agent, and unless you're treating E.T.'s, all your
> potential patients are less than one-eighth of a light-second away
> from you.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
John Stafford
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:59:07 -0500, John Stafford
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> I've told you once you're full of shit. The link leads
> directly to A CITATION OF MY PAPER at ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC
> LTD the world's largest and most premier scientific
> publisher. If the link was too long for Usenet you can go
> to:
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0732118X
Nope. Ya ain't there, which IMHO is good for you because to be
associated with that loser sight is instant death.
See ya tomorrow. Maybe.
George Hammond
<now...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:59:07 -0500, John Stafford
>>> Link? Their search turns up nothing of yours.
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> I've told you once you're full of shit. The link leads
>> directly to A CITATION OF MY PAPER at ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC
>> LTD the world's largest and most premier scientific
>> publisher. If the link was too long for Usenet you can go
>> to:
>>
>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0732118X
>
>Nope. Ya ain't there,
>
>
[Hammond]
LIAR
Juan R.
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:52:35 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>>George Hammond wrote on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:16:12 -0400:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:02:44 -0500, John Stafford <now...@nowhere.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
>>>>> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Pergamon Press.
>>>>
>>>>Pergamon Press was just a hype, capitalistic, unrecognized effort to
>>>>suck in your dollars and everyone elses'. It is dead. As it should be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> You don't know what you're talking about asshole.
>>> Pergamon was bought out by ELSEVIER the biggest
>>> scientific publisher in the world.
>>
>>They are the biggest in economic terms (many journals, many money), but
>>far from being the more important in *scientific* terms.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> ESLEVIER SCIETIFIC LTD has 7,000 journal editors, 70,000
> editorial board members, 300,000 reviewers, and 600,000 authors
> publishing 2,000 journals, 19,000 books; with 2,000 new books each year.
> DON'T TELL ME that my paper has not been published by a
> REPUTABLE publisher.
>
> get off this thread Zorro, if you don't have anything
> on-topic to say.
First, you confound quality with quantity. Rankings of several of their
journals are often low.
Second, you sniped the part of my message explaining some unscientific
behavior of Elsevier, including the to sci.physics.research threads
analizing this.
Third, psychology is not one of hard sciences as physics.
Fourth, your work about "scientific proof of God" continues being plain
nonsense. Even Science or Nature publish absolute giberish some day.
> ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD
> WEBSITE
> Primary site
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
Juan R.
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:33:21 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>>George Hammond wrote on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:03:17 -0400:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:37:59 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>>> <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>George Hammond wrote on Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:00:09 -0400:
>>>>
>>>>
>>Since I quoted above the part of your message saying that you got
>>finally it published in the "Noetic journal", I may conclude that you
>>did not undertood the irony. Publishing in Noetic Journal is very much
>>as not publishing at all.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Hey ZORRO, prof. Karl H. Pribram is one of the
> editors... don't tell me it isn't a quality journal.
> Get the fuck off this thread.
You sniped from my message the extract from the Noetic Journal website
(and http link) saying that the Noetic Journal "is not just confined to
current myopic limits of scientific phenomenology"; saying that "Science
is inadequate"; and saying that Noetics is the study of mind which
utilizes "the humility and absolute truth of theology".
Humility and the absolute truth of theology also characterize your posts
and 'proofs', but this is a sci.* newsgroup :-D
> ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD
> WEBSITE
> Primary site
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
<SNIP NUMBUM>
Gonz�lez-�lvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
<SNIP NUMBUM>
Gonz�lez-�lvarez <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
<SNIP>